Hearing screening in healthy newborns: feasibility of different methods with regard to test time

Hahn, M.; Lamprecht-Dinnesen, Antoinette; Heinecke, A.; Hartmann, Sabine; Bülbül, Selda; Schroder, G.H.; Steinhard, J.; Louwen, Frank; Seifert, Eberhard

doi:10.1016/s0165-5876(99)00265-7

Cited by 37 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the later ABR and TEOAE automation, even in the same equipment, made it easier to evaluate different protocols, where the combination of one or the other test in one or two stages achieved the greatest effectiveness [6]. In 1993, the National Institute of Health (NIH) [32] recommended an initial TEOAE test and, if the result was ''refer'', an immediate ABR test as the preferred screening model [2,7,11,33,34]. Several later studies [9,18] criticized this model, because higher referral rates were obtained following the second test than if only one test with AABR had been performed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is true that screening test time varies depending on the child's hearing, the presence of partial obstructions in the external auditory canal or the middle ear, and on test conditions. However, the average time needed to carry out automated ABR testing ranges from 8 to 15 min [2,5,9,[16][17][18]20,22,26,36,[38][39][40], and conventional TEOAE tests take from 2 to 13 min [1,2,9,10,16,17]. We calculate, without exact measurements, that each test took an average of 15 min using the specified AABR equipment and about 10 min using that of TEOAE.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, the ideal hearing-screening test for children has yet to be defined [2] and local circumstances may make variations necessary. However, a low false-positive rate is central to the success of a pre-discharge neonatal hearing-screening program.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Benito-Orejas

Ramírez

Morais

et al. 2008

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryObjective: Both transitory auditory otoemissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem responses (AABR) are considered adequate methods for universal hearing screening. The goal of this study was to compare the results obtained with each device, applying the same screening procedure. The population studied included all well newborns and those admitted to neonatal intensive care units (NICU). The first screening was normally undertaken with well babies during the first 48 h of life, before hospital discharge. Infants referred from this first step underwent a second screening after hospital discharge, before they were a month old. Results: The results from each study group were compared and analyzed for significant differences. TEOAE screening yielded 10.2% fail results from the first screening step; AABR gave 2.6%. In the second screening step, 2% of the newborns screened with TEOAE were referred, whereas 0.32% of those screened with AABR were referred. These differences are statistically significant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Benito-Orejas

Ramírez

Morais

et al. 2008

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social, emotional, cognitive and language development of infants is provided by early diagnosis of hearing deficit (4)(5)(6). Hearing deficit is reported with a rate of 1-6 in 1000 live births in healthy newborns, while it reaches up to 10-30 in 1000 live births in newborns with risk factors (1,7,8).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zekai Tahir Burak Women’s Health Education and Research Hospital newborn hearing screening results and assessment of the patients

Çelik¹,

Canpolat²,

Demırel³

et al. 2014

Turk Arch Ped

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Social, emotional, cognitive and language development of infants is provided with early diagnosis of hearing deficit. Hearing deficit is reported with a rate of 1-6 in 1000 live births in healthy newborns, while it reaches up to 10-30 in 1000 live births in newborns with risk factors. We aimed to compile the results of the hearing screening program applied in our hospital. Material and Methods:The records of the hearing screening program were examined and the results were compiled by reaching the records of the patients who were found to have hearing deficit. Results:Hearing test was applied in a total of 142 128 patients between 2005 and 2011. Hearing test was performed by evoked autoaucistic emission for two times in 26 690 of these patients and for three times in 2 412. A diagnosis of hearing deficit was made in 385 patients (0.27%) after application of ARB (Auditory Brainstem Response). The medical records of 171 of the patients who were referred for advanced investigations and treatment were obtained. 116 of these patients had a history of hospitalization in neonatal intensive care unit, while 55 patients had no history of hospitalization in neonatal intensive care unit. 49 of the patients had a gestational age below the 32 th week and 122 had a gestational age above the 32 th week. The median gestational age and birth weight values and ranges were found to be 35 (22-43) and 2 140 g (580-4 590 g), respectively. The risk factors included intrauterine growth retardation (n=24), multiple pregnancy (n=22), hyperbilirubinemia (n=74), blood exchange because of hyperbilirubinemia (n=7), sepsis (n=52), hypoglycemia (n=2), use of aminoglycoside and glycopeptide (n=99), use of furosemide (n=27), mechanical ventilation therapy (n=37), polycythemia (n=12), prenatal asphyxia (n=2), respiratory distress syndrome (n=45), chronic lung disease (n=11), surgery for retinopathy of prematurity (n=8) and hearing deficit in the mother or father (n=7). Conclusions:In addition to the necessity of performing hearing screening in all newborns, infants with risk factors should be determined, hearing deficit should be screened with repeated hearing tests and social, emotional, cognitive and language development of the infant should be assured. (Türk Ped Arş 2014; 49: 138-41)

show abstract

“…[2][3][4][5][6] However, little is known about the effect of adding the automated ABR stage on the procedure's false-negative rates (ie, infants with hearing loss who are missed). Johnson et al 7 estimated that ∼23% of infants with hearing loss are not identified by a 2-stage protocol because they pass the automated ABR stage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity of the Automated Auditory Brainstem Response in Neonatal Hearing Screening

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Hearing screening in healthy newborns: feasibility of different methods with regard to test time

Cited by 37 publications

References 17 publications

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Comparison of two-step transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) for universal newborn hearing screening programs

Zekai Tahir Burak Women’s Health Education and Research Hospital newborn hearing screening results and assessment of the patients

Sensitivity of the Automated Auditory Brainstem Response in Neonatal Hearing Screening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About